Friday 11 July 2008 05.30 EDT
First published on Friday 11 July 2008 05.30 EDT

In a decision with potentially disastrous implications for the government's equality agenda (not to mention the idea of a secular society), an employment tribunal has upheld a claim from a Christian registrar that she suffered direct discrimination after she was "bullied" and "harassed" for refusing to conduct civil partnerships for gay couples.

The ruling appears to place the religious "conscience" of registrars above their legal duty to carry out parliament's legislation. If it is not overturned on appeal, and it sets a precedent, where could it lead? Will other public servants be permitted to refuse services on the grounds that their religion does not permit them to approve of their clients lifestyles?

Firemen refusing to rescue co-habiting couples from burning buildings? Doctors refusing to treat people with HIV? Police officers refusing to come to the aid of unmarried mothers?

Lillian Ladele, the registrar in question, was, until December 2007, effectively a freelancer. This permitted her to swap with other registrars to avoid having to officiate at civil partnerships. But since then, these services have been under the direct control of the local authority, which has an equal opportunities policy that does not permit this kind of discrimination.

Ladele claimed it resulted in her being forced to choose between her religion and her job. She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships.

Naturally, the Christian Institute, which bankrolled this case, is cock-a-hoop. This is a result that they and other Christian activists have been trying to achieve for some time now. It will provide the platform they've needed to build their dream of a theocratic Britain.

There have been several tribunal decisions that have gone against them - including the British Airways cross case, the Bishop of Hereford's withdrawal of a job offer to a gay man, which resulted in the diocese being heavily fined and the family court magistrate who refused to ruled on gay adoption cases.

Of course, this catastrophe was inevitable where religious rights and gay rights compete under the same legal umbrella. They are completely incompatible and would inevitably come into conflict. This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights - and that is something that should leave gay people quaking in their boots.

There will be major implications for the government's equality and human rights agenda. What other duties will religious people now claim exemption from? We have already seen pharmacists refuse to provide contraception on religious grounds and supermarket check-out attendants refusing to handle alcohol or pork products. Others demand that they should not be required to work on holy days.

Religious people already have a huge concession in that civil partnerships can't be performed in churches. It is unjust and unfair then that religious people now seek to colonise civil and secular spaces like council offices or magistrates courts demanding religious exemptions. The point of state-run facilities are that any citizen can make use of them and expect equal treatment and service. These are all taxpayer funded services – so, in effect, non-believers and gay people are paying to be discriminated against. If religious officiants who are willing to perform ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples are not allowed by law to opt in, in why should secular registrars be allowed to opt out?

People are rightly protected from being discriminated against because of their religion, but the spirit of this law should not be perverted to allow religious people license to discriminate against others on the basis of their religious belief. Equality legislation is already undermined by numerous exemptions, practically all of them concessions to the religious. Every one of their privileges has a victim. After all, these exemptions are given to the very people most likely to discriminate.

We should be aware that the people behind this push to religionise our society are not the regular church-goers who generally wouldn't dream of behaving in this bigoted way. It is a small group of determined zealots who will not stop until we're all subject to their version of "religious freedom" (which seems to mean freedom for them, and restrictions for others). Often behind these apparently vulnerable individuals there stands a highly organised and well-funded pressure group.

It is vital that this decision is overturned. If it isn't, the sky's the limit for these ambitious evangelists.